Press, polls, and pundits.

Don’t you just love alliteration.

Okay, so…back to this 1948 and 1972 campaign thing…on the involvement of the press…

Karabell tells us that President Truman’s unpopularity was partly due to his relationship to the press, which, at the time, happened to be a press that openly expressed its opinions rather than the objective perspective we see in today’s media (uh really?). Hmm…what’s objectivity again? Shall we partake in a a cup of tea as we engage in the discourse of that which is objective? I think not! Nevertheless, Truman was partaking in beverages with the “elite journalists” of his time, journalists who held significant influence in the media coverage of the day. Unfortunately for Truman, some reporters were just not feeling the dude. I’m reminded of this 2008 presidential campaign. Maybe the journalists of the 1940’s didn’t think this “inept” and “artless” man was “presidential enough.” I shudder as I hear those last two words. What does “presidential enough” mean anyway?

However, the press bullied (ooh that’s harsh, but I like it) Truman like they bully anyone else today…and eventually they jumped on his bandwagon, held is hand, and started spinning in circles with him while singing Barney songs – well, not exactly, but you know where I’m going with this. In the 1940s, if the press liked you, you got positive coverage, and if they didn’t, they flipped you half of a peace sign and that was that. (Wait second. Read it again. Ookay. Now you get it.) At the end of the day, it just depended on whose side they were on the first place and, at first, the press was really just on the side of Dewey. Shame they were wrong. Just all wrong, wrong, wrong.

Out with the 1940s and in with the boys of 1970s… on the involvement of the press.

In the 1972 presidential campaign, journalists did have an interesting story to tell of their own (independently of the ongoing election), even if they were packed in a can, or bus, or plane, but the affects of pack journalism…well let’s just say that those that were lucky enough to leave the pack either contributed to the headlines or just got the boot altogether. I mean, I didn’t major in sociology but I know that pack journalism must be some sort of (ah-hem evil) sociological product. ((Thank the lord for the digital revolution. We are no longer relegated to the confines of unidirectional news reporting.))

A young Rolling Stone reporter, Crouse opened the American public’s eyes to the story of the press. The Boys on the Bus really humanizes journalists- the person’s who were the the creative masterminds behind the story of the presidential campaigns. Nonetheless, Crouse describes these journalists as real people that were thirsty for politics, headlines, and some accolades here and there. And of the women? They might not have been on the bus, but their insurgency nature in the male-dominated media and political scene allowed them to write “tough” pieces about the campaign.

Crouse made us care about the fact that journalists had their own story to tell – a story so important that it shaped the behind-the-scenes efforts of many political spheres- however, we only cared for the moment. Why did this change? Perhaps, there’s just something awkward about knowing the behind-the-scenes gossip about the people who give us the news…